remove_enum_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a missing entry reports already_absent rather than erroring, the last remaining entry is protected, and the hidden _MAX sentinel is never counted or removable. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not derive from the annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and constraints, followed by an explicit return-shape line. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description inlines the exact return fields (removed, already_absent, entry_count), covering the result contract fully. Constraints on last-entry and sentinel handling close the remaining gaps for a mutating tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's note that entry_name accepts display or internal name matches the schema description and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (one enumerator from a Blueprint Enum), and the parenthetical about display/internal name sharpens the target further. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling mutators add_enum_entry, rename_enum_entry, and reorder_enum_entry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (removing a single entry) and describes boundary conditions (refuses last entry, idempotent on missing), but never names an alternative tool or a when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings. Usage is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.